Ignorance and the Bible

[Based Chad]

Organized religion is all about control. Stray from the company line and you’re branded an outsider. Or worse yet, a heretic of some sort.

Unlike church dogma that theists follow, atheists aren’t “trained” in anything. Most, like myself, come to their conclusions about gods, especially the Christian god, after considerable study and introspection. Very much different than those who are indoctrinated into a particular religion before they are old enough to think on their own.

You’re a Christian, right? That’s because you were born in a Christian setting. You’d be Muslim or Jewish or whatever being born in those environments. It’s no coincidence that one’s religion is almost always defined on their place of birth.

no.

I believe a rationalist analysis of the texts reveals christianity as obejectively morality superior.

but I'm also a Buddhist.

we can into it if you want.

 

[domer76]

Domer, I am not really sure what you mean when you say that they became "atheists." When I have discussed this in the past there were three schools of thought offered:

a) It means they no longer "believe" there is a God...and only that.
b) It means they now "believe" there are no gods.
c) It means they now "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.




Reading this seems to indicate that you mean either (b) or (c) above.

Is that what your research indicates for the "scholars" you are citing?

We’ve been down this road before. Each person has their own path to atheism. You don’t need to place quotes around “believe”, either.

You want to know which of your a), b) or c) for someone? Ask them.

For me, my study has led me to conclude that man invented his gods, usually in his own image, to explain things he couldn’t. It’s a primitive concept. The supernatural does not exist.

 

[Cypress]

Agreed, but young atheists and conspiracy theorist nutjobs push it as science or history to set up a strawman argument. It's not very smart and intelligent adults can see right through their ploy, but that's how they roll.

As Dean Wormer said, "Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son".

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkoPq5AOCOA

You're right. The most strict biblical literalists out there are Southern Baptists, Pentecostals, and atheists. Which is very weird when you think about it.

Anyone with a college or high school education is supposed to be able to understand literary style and read in context.

 

[gmark77]

You're right. The most strict biblical literalists out there are Southern Baptists, Pentecostals, and atheists. Which is very weird when you think about it.

Atheist aren't literalists but they do like to discuss a literal interp of the Bible because it is "low hanging fruit". It's a no-brainer to debate against biblical literalists which is why atheists debate them. But more importantly biblical literalism has a tendency to reach out and pester secular society. Atheists tend to get caught up in those types of things, like attempts to change how science is taught etc.

But if one thinks atheists are limited by that literalism then that's a huge mistake. Atheists also like to discuss the theological implications of God and the issues that pop up there. Those tend to be more nuanced and technical.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Organized religion is all about control. Stray from the company line and you’re branded an outsider. Or worse yet, a heretic of some sort.

Unlike church dogma that theists follow, atheists aren’t “trained” in anything. Most, like myself, come to their conclusions about gods, especially the Christian god, after considerable study and introspection. Very much different than those who are indoctrinated into a particular religion before they are old enough to think on their own.

You’re a Christian, right? That’s because you were born in a Christian setting. You’d be Muslim or Jewish or whatever being born in those environments. It’s no coincidence that one’s religion is almost always defined on their place of birth.

Isn't that true of any human organization be it a government, a military or university? Toe the line or pay the price?

The weakness in atheists is the arrogant belief that they are better than others. Their belief they are superior because they don't believe in anything. Weird.

 

[Cypress]

Atheist aren't literalists but they do like to discuss a literal interp of the Bible because it is "low hanging fruit". It's a no-brainer to debate against biblical literalists which is why atheists debate them. But more importantly biblical literalism has a tendency to reach out and pester secular society. Atheists tend to get caught up in those types of things, like attempts to change how science is taught etc.

But if one thinks atheists are limited by that literalism then that's a huge mistake. Atheists also like to discuss the theological implications of God and the issues that pop up there. Those tend to be more nuanced and technical.

Lots of people, including atheists, want to treat Genesis 1 and 2 as a ridiculous error-filled 'scientific' description of creation.

It's easier to make fun of ancient Hebrews that way.

Genesis 1 and 2 is Hebrew poetry, not science, and when you get right down to the level of allegory it's really not a bad metaphor for the creation of matter and life from the void. As metaphor, that is pretty close to what actually happened.

 

[gmark77]

Lots of people, including atheists, want to treat Genesis 1 and 2 as a ridiculous error-filled 'scientific' description of creation.

It's easier to make fun of ancient Hebrews that way.

No, it's not making fun of the ancients. That would be silly. It's far more fun to make fun of modern day people who enjoy all the benefits of science but who think Genesis is literal.

Genesis 1 and 2 is Hebrew poetry, not science

Agreed. Which is why I fully supported the campaigns to make sure creationism and intelligent design were not taught as legitimate alternatives to evolution in the schools.

, and when you get right down to the level of allegory it's really not a bad metaphor for the creation of matter and life from the void.

Parts are

As metaphor, that is pretty close to what actually happened.

Actually virtually nothing in the "creation week" lines up with anything in science, not even "metaphorically". It gets most things backwards and out of order. So it doesn't provide much value to anyone in anything.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Lots of people, including atheists, want to treat Genesis 1 and 2 as a ridiculous error-filled 'scientific' description of creation.

It's easier to make fun of ancient Hebrews that way.

Genesis 1 and 2 is Hebrew poetry, not science, and when you get right down to the level of allegory it's really not a bad metaphor for the creation of matter and life from the void. As metaphor, that is pretty close to what actually happened.

Most cultures have origin or creation stories. Notice how the atheists looooove to attack Christians, but don't spend much, if any, time ridiculing Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Taoists, etc much less those in their own ranks who don't toe the Atheist line. LOL

Our Vision

We envision a world in which policies are made using the best evidence we have rather than using religious dogma.

www.atheists.org

Atheism is the comprehensive world view of persons who are free from theism and have freed themselves of supernatural beliefs altogether. It is predicated on ancient Greek Materialism.

Materialism - Ancient, Epicurean, Marxist | Britannica

Materialism - Ancient, Epicurean, Marxist: Though Thales of Miletus (c. 580 bce) and some of the other pre-Socratic philosophers have some claims to being regarded as materialists, the materialist tradition in Western philosophy really begins with Leucippus and Democritus, Greek philosophers who...

www.britannica.com

 

[Cypress]

Most cultures have origin or creation stories. Notice how the atheists looooove to attack Christians, but don't spend much, if any, time ridiculing Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Taoists, etc much less those in their own ranks who don't toe the Atheist line. LOL

Our Vision

We envision a world in which policies are made using the best evidence we have rather than using religious dogma.

www.atheists.org

Atheism is the comprehensive world view of persons who are free from theism and have freed themselves of supernatural beliefs altogether. It is predicated on ancient Greek Materialism.

Materialism - Ancient, Epicurean, Marxist | Britannica

Materialism - Ancient, Epicurean, Marxist: Though Thales of Miletus (c. 580 bce) and some of the other pre-Socratic philosophers have some claims to being regarded as materialists, the materialist tradition in Western philosophy really begins with Leucippus and Democritus, Greek philosophers who...

www.britannica.com

I don't think Americans know very much about world religions to be able to attack them.

It is weird how abuse isn't heaped on Jews about stories in the Hebrew Old Testament, but is studiously used as cannon fodder specifically for Xtians.

The most interesting thing to me is that until we noticed the optical red shift in galaxies in the early 20th century, the default position in the scientific community at the time was that the universe was static, steady-state, and infinitely old. The idea that there was a moment of creation, or big bang, was totally unexpected to most physicists.

 

[gmark77]

Most cultures have origin or creation stories. Notice how the atheists looooove to attack Christians, but don't spend much, if any, time ridiculing Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Taoists, etc

That's because none of them have been actively seeking to alter how science is taught in schools.

I would be equally against "Vedic Science" if it was being forced into science classes. That's not so much an issue here in the US.

I would also fight tooth and nail against Shariah law if it was being pushed in our secular society. Again, not really an issue here.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I don't think Americans know very much about world religions to be able to attack them.

The most interesting thing to me is that until we noticed the optical red shift in galaxies in the early 20th century, the default position in the scientific community was that the universe was static, steady-state, and infinitely old. The idea that there was a moment of creation, or big bang, was totally unexpected to most physicists.

Soooo....atheists are just like other American dumbasses? LOL No doubt you are correct most Americans don't know much about religions other than their own. Although some might engage in self-study, most are probably like myself and took a comparative religion course or two in college....which is less than 38% of the adult population.

The Percentage of Americans with College Degrees in 2024

We look at the percentage of Americans with college degrees. Wondering what percentage of Americans go to college? See all of the stats here.

www.collegetransitions.com

In the Census Bureau’s most recent 2022 findings, the percentage of people with a bachelor’s degree or higher remained stable from the previous year at around 37.7%.


Agreed on the Big Bang revelation although prominent scientists like Fred Hoyle continued to reject the idea. It wasn't until our instruments for measuring the Universe were refined that it became clear ours was not an Oscillating Universe, but a One-Shot Universe that began with the Big Bang and will end with the Big Chill.

Fred Hoyle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

While having no argument with the Lemaître theory (later confirmed by Edwin Hubble's observations) that the universe was expanding, Hoyle disagreed on its interpretation. He found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms" (see Kalam cosmological argument).[34] Instead, Hoyle, along with Thomas Gold and Hermann Bondi (with whom he had worked on radar in the Second World War), in 1948 began to argue for the universe as being in a "steady state" and formulated their Steady State theory.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

That's because none of them have been actively seeking to alter how science is taught in schools.

I would be equally against "Vedic Science" if it was being forced into science classes. That's not so much an issue here in the US.

I would also fight tooth and nail against Shariah law if it was being pushed in our secular society. Again, not really an issue here.

You really believe that? Haven't you heard about the Taliban and women in schools???

Thanks for admitting you're only concerned about American atheism.

I'm not an atheist, but I agree with keeping religion and schools separate. There's facts and there's beliefs, including atheism. The latter can be taught in a comparative religion or beliefs class, but not taught as fact or the "one true" belief. Any atheists who think they can prove their beliefs are only fooling themselves.

 

[gmark77]

You really believe that? Haven't you heard about the Taliban and women in schools???

No, I was talking about in the US.

If we are talking across the globe then yeah atheists come out against folks like the Taliban. I mean just look at the writings of Hitchens and Harris. Cypress complains about the "bomb throwers" but they are not holding their fire for any one particular religion.

Thanks for admitting you're only concerned about American atheism.

Well, the fact remains that atheists don't just limit it to Christians. But in the US we obviously do for the simple reason that they are the dominant faith which imposes itself on the overall society.

I'm not an atheist, but I agree with keeping religion and schools separate. There's facts and there's beliefs, including atheism. The latter can be taught in a comparative religion or beliefs class, but not taught as fact or the "one true" belief. Any atheists who think they can prove their beliefs are only fooling themselves.

I don't know any atheists that try to "prove" anything about God or faith or religion.

That's kind of the point of atheism. It has nothing to prove.

 

[Ross Dolan]

(A) is the only rational approach to atheism.

No, it isn't...which is why I asked the question.

(B) is logically impossible to prove (you can't prove a universal negative like "There is no God", he could be hiding somewhere, so that's out)

Okay...which is why I asked if it meant to "believe" there are no gods. Are you saying there are no people who believe there are no gods?

(C) Seems little more than a restatement of the first with the addition of "belief" thrown in. I'd prefer this one be eliminated.

I would prefer that it not be eliminated, mostly because I think that particular "belief" is the reason most atheists identify as atheists.

Basically it leaves as the primary definition a lack of belief. Nothing more. (I know there are some atheists who take the (B) approach but I fundamentally disagree with them since it involves proving a universal negative which is impossible to prove.)

Prior to (c) 1950...the definition of atheist was almost always, "someone who believes there are no gods." Not sure why you would disagree with something someone believes. Essentially, it is just a guess. The person may be wrong...or correct.

Just like I don't believe in the little people in the wilds of Iceland. They may very well be there as Bjork claims, but I've seen no evidence and as such feel quite comfortable in simply not believing the claim.

Okay, you do not have the belief. But that does not mean others can't.

It is not a matter of faith that I don't believe in these things, it is because no valuable reason to believe in them has been presented. And that which can be presented without evidence can be easily dismissed.

So let me ask you: Do you believe it is more likely that there are no gods; that it is more likely that there is at least one; or that the chances are 50/50 on the question?

 

[Ross Dolan]

We’ve been down this road before. Each person has their own path to atheism. You don’t need to place quotes around “believe”, either.

You want to know which of your a), b) or c) for someone? Ask them.

For me, my study has led me to conclude that man invented his gods, usually in his own image, to explain things he couldn’t. It’s a primitive concept. The supernatural does not exist.

So you "believe" that the supernatural does not exist?

Actually, I am pretty sure that nothing exists except that which exists...so the word "supernatural" essentially is useless.

If you are saying that nothing exists except those things that we humans can sense in some way...then I suggest, respectfully, that you are wrong.

I ask again: Do you believe it is more likely that there are no gods; that it is more likely that there is at least one; or that the chances are 50/50 on the question?

 

[gmark77]

Okay, you do not have the belief. But that does not mean others can't.

People are free to hold whatever beliefs they want.

So let me ask you: Do you believe it is more likely that there are no gods; that it is more likely that there is at least one; or that the chances are 50/50 on the question?

Given that I have been shown zero evidence of God (any God or gods) I think it more likely there are no gods than that there is one or more than one.

Atheism is SUPER SIMPLE. There has been no evidence provided that would indicate God is real. I simply lack belief in the claim that God is real.

 

[gfm7175]

It is quite humorous that those who are the most ignorant on the Bible are those who profess to be Bible thumping Christians.

A number of them ARE ignorant on the Bible; a number of them aren't. Depends on which one(s) you talk to.

The scholars, people who actually STUDY the Bible for a living, are mostly atheists. And they became atheists only AFTER their deep study led them to that conclusion.

Who are "the scholars"? Any names? I want to verify this claim of yours for myself.

If the Bible stories that defy all laws of science and nature were written today, by an author we could actually talk to about his veracity, we would label it as science fiction.

You don't get to speak for everyone, gomer.

But, since it was written by several unknown authors 2000 years ago, the believers take it as fact.

This is just plain incorrect. The "author" of the Bible is God. The "writers" of the Bible (the people who penned it down) are mostly known.

Delusional. Willfully ignorant. Intellectually lazy.

Yes, you are.

 

[Cypress]

Agreed on the Big Bang revelation although prominent scientists like Fred Hoyle continued to reject the idea.

True. The story is that Fred Hoyle kept clinging to the idea of a steady-state universe long after other scientists began accepting the Big Bang, because he really just didn't like the implication of a moment of creation.

 

[gfm7175]

Hello!

Hello!

 

[gfm7175]

Too many people lack the ability to think critically.

You would know...